CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEndodontics and Root Canal TreatmentsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

CONSORT Compliance in Randomized Clinical Trials of Regenerative Endodontic Treatments of Necrotic Immature Teeth: A Scoping Review

Sponchiado-Júnior, Emílio Carlos, Vieira, Walbert de Andrade, Frozoni, Marcos, Herkrath, Fernando José, de-Jesus-Soares, Adriana·2021·Journal of Endodontics
DOI 10.1016/j.joen.2021.07.017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Introduction This study aimed to investigate methodological quality of clinical trials in regenerative endodontics and its compliance with the CONSORT statement.Methods An electronic search was performed in 8 electronic databases. Only clinical trials whose participants underwent regenerative endodontic treatment on necrotic permanent immature teeth were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool (RoB, version 2.0). Compliance of articles with the CONSORT guidelines was assessed by a tool with scales: 0 = no description, 1 = deficient, and 2 = adequate description, totaling a maximum score of 32 points. The Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the scores among journals, studies, country, income levels, and publication periods. Spearman correlation analyses were performed between CONSORT compliance scores and 2019 journal CiteScore values, publication year, and quality assessment.Results Twenty studies were included. The average CONSORT compliance score was 20.95 (±6.19). The better reported items were the description of the interventions performed in the trials (100%), followed by the description of the number of patients analyzed, losses and exclusions (90%), and the hypothesis tested (85%). Within the 20 studies, 3 articles were classified as "low risk of bias," 8 studies were classified as "some concerns," and 9 studies were considered "high risk of bias." Studies carried out in countries with higher income levels presented higher CONSORT scores. Significant moderate correlations were found between the CONSORT score and the percentage of risk of bias in low-risk domains (r s = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31-0.94; P = .003) and the overall risk of bias categories (r s = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P = .001).Conclusions The adequacy of reporting based on the CONSORT checklist items of regenerative endodontic trials was low with a moderate to high risk of bias.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.joen.2021.07.017

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies in different dental specialties indicate a need for improvement.

    “Over time, evidence of the impact of CONSORT has accumulated, and studies have already shown that its endorsement by journals improves the quality of RCT reports in dentistry 6 ; however, several studies in different dental specialties indicate a need for improvement 8 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

  • In dentistry, studies have shown that 40% to 52% of the RCTs included in their analyses presented a high risk of bias, indicating inappropriate conduct.

    “In dentistry, studies have shown that 40% to 52% of the RCTs included in their analyses presented a high risk of bias, indicating inappropriate conduct 8 , 15 , 18 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Similar percentages of non-reporting were also observed in areas such as endodontics (40%), pediatric dentistry (64%), and restorative dentistry (60% to 83%).

    “Similar percentages of non-reporting were also observed in areas such as endodontics (40%) 15 , pediatric dentistry (64%) 8 , and restorative dentistry (60% to 83%) 16 , 17 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

  • In dentistry, many authors agree that reporting of RCTs is still suboptimal.

    “In dentistry, many authors agree that reporting of RCTs is still suboptimal 15 , 17 , 18 , 30 .”

    From Global mapping of randomized controlled trials in dentistry (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sponchiado-Júnior, E. C., Vieira, W. D. A., Frozoni, M., Herkrath, F. J., & de-Jesus-Soares, A.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
  • Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic (BR)
  • Fiocruz Amazônia (BR)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Endodontics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
47
Issue
11
Pages
1751-1766
ISSN
0099-2399 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.joen.2021.07.017
OpenAlex
W3192358103
Cited by
11
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Endodontics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (88887.473221/2020-00)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
reporting quality, regenerative endodontics, permanent teeth, risk of bias, clinical trial design, CiteScore
MeSH terms
Regenerative Endodontics, Humans, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review